header-logo header-logo

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Litigation

R v Kepple [2007] EWCA Crim 1339, [2007] All ER (D) 107 (Jun)

Where the defendant is being tried in his absence but counsel continues to act, he should conduct the case as though his client were still present in court but had decided not to give evidence on the basis of any instruction he had received.

He is free to use any material contained in his brief and may cross-examine prosecution witnesses and call defence witnesses. Counsel is entitled to ask questions of prosecution witnesses in as much detail as he wishes based on his instructions, but without indicating what the defendant’s evidence might have been and in the knowledge that he will not be able to call evidence to contradict the answers given.

He is entitled to conduct cross examination on this basis in the hope of either showing that his absent client’s instructions are accepted by the witnesses or casting doubt upon the coherence or accuracy of their accounts.

Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—William Hallett & Lorna Scully

Anthony Collins—William Hallett & Lorna Scully

Anthony Collins hires two talented legal directors

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

NEWS
A High Court ruling has sent a jolt through the legal profession after a newly qualified solicitor used an internal AI tool to produce court correspondence containing a fabricated legal citation
A significant data privacy ruling has clarified what counts as valid consent under UK data protection law
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
back-to-top-scroll